Jihad in the U.S. -- Oh, yes, it's underway here too...

[Snowden]

Democrats: No offshore drilling


No one understands this problem in the context of the global jihad, so they do not understand the urgency of finding solutions. "Bush to Congress: Embrace energy exploration now," by H. Josef Hebert for Associated Press, June 18:

WASHINGTON - With gasoline topping $4 a gallon, President Bush urged Congress on Wednesday to lift its long-standing ban on offshore oil and gas drilling, saying the United States needs to increase its energy production. Democrats quickly rejected the idea.

"There is no excuse for delay," the president said in a statement in the Rose Garden. With the presidential election just months away, Bush made a pointed attack on Democrats, accusing them of obstructing his energy proposals and blaming them for high gasoline costs. His proposal echoed a call by Republican presidential candidate John McCain to open the Continental Shelf for exploration.

"Families across the country are looking to Washington for a response," Bush said.

Congressional Democrats were quick to reject the push for lifting the drilling moratorium, saying oil companies already have 68 million acres offshore waters under lease that are not being developed.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Bush's proposals "another page from (an)... energy policy that was literally written by the oil industry — give away more public resources."

Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrats' presumptive presidential nominee, rejected lifting the drilling moratorium that has been supported by a succession of presidents for nearly two decades.

"This is not something that's going to give consumers short-term relief and it is not a long-term solution to our problems with fossil fuels generally and oil in particular," said Obama. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, lumping Bush with McCain, accused them of staging a "cynical campaign ploy" that won't help lower energy prices.

"Despite what President Bush, John McCain and their friends in the oil industry claim, we cannot drill our way out of this problem," Reid said. "The math is simple: America has just three percent of the world's oil reserves, but Americans use a quarter of its oil."

Jihad Watch: Democrats: No offshore drilling

[Snowden]

McCain camp: Obama "naive"; Obama camp: McCain fearmongering


And meanwhile neither one fully understands the Islamic supremacist agenda or the various mechanisms of the stealth jihad. "McCain Camp Hits Obama for Terrorism Remarks: Praise of 1993 World Trade Center Bombers Prosecution 'Naïve' and 'Dangerous,' Campaign Says," by Jake Tapper for ABC News, June 17 (thanks to all who sent this in):

TAYLOR, MICH., June 17, 2008 — Supporters of Sen. John McCain seized upon comments about terrorism made by Sen. Barack Obama in an interview with ABC News Monday, saying his approving words about the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings indicated a naïve, pre-9/11, and dangerous view of how to combat terrorism.

"Senator Obama is a perfect manifestation of a September 10th mindset," declared Randy Scheunemann, the McCain campaign's director of foreign policy and national security.

James Woolsey, CIA director during the Clinton administration, said Obama was advocating "an extremely dangerous and extremely naïve approach toward terrorism." [...]

Asked during that interview how Obama could be so sure that certain controversial domestic anti-terrorism policies instituted by the Bush administration were not crucial to the protection of U.S. citizens, Obama said that he didn't oppose all the efforts per se, but that "it is my firm belief that we can track terrorists, we can crack down on threats against the United States, but we can do so within the constraints of our Constitution."

Obama then cited "the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center -- we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated. And the fact that the administration has not tried to do that has created a situation where not only have we never actually put many of these folks on trial, but we have destroyed our credibility when it comes to rule of law all around the world, and given a huge boost to terrorist recruitment in countries that say, 'Look, this is how the United States treats Muslims.'"

Obama concluded that the detainee camp at Guantanamo -- which both Obama, D-Ill., and McCain, R-Ariz., have advocated closing -- "is an example of something that was unnecessary. We could have done the exact same thing, but done it in a way that was consistent with our laws."

Woolsey argued that Obama "is suggesting that we do everything through the law enforcement system," which, he argued, "is exactly what failed in 1990s."

The Clinton administration "proceeded with 100% law enforcement focus," Woolsey said. "It did not work." Terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Osama bin Laden were indicted and went on to continue wreaking havoc with the bombings of the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the U.S.S. Cole, and the September 11 terrorist attacks, said the former CIA head.

Former Navy Secretary Jonathan Lehman, a member of the 9/11 Commission, said that the commission's investigations "certainly made clear that the way the criminal justice system as applied to the perpetrators of the 1993 bombing was a material cause of the greater tragedy of 9/11 because it was treated as a law enforcement issue."...

Lehman also said that the cost of opening the U.S. criminal justice system to enemy combatants in Guantanamo Bay would be prohibitive, since it cost taxpayers more than $100 million to prosecute the seven defendants in the 1993 case. Obama's comments, Lehman said, indicate "a very deep, first, ignorance of the facts and a very, very dangerous policy."

'Politics of Fear'

Predicted Scheunemann, "I have no doubt that we'll hear in the course of the day that the Obama campaign will say we're practicing the 'politics of fear.' And the reality is that what Sen. Obama's statement reflects last night is that he's advocating a policy of delusion that ignores the failed approach of the 1990s that allowed Al Qaeda to thrive and prosper unmolested and that policy clearly made America less safe and more vulnerable."

Obama's top surrogates held a conference call with reporters Wednesday to defend the presumptive Democratic nominee and blast McCain's foreign policy record.

"We voted for war against al Qaeda," said Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., on the call, "But Saddam Hussein and Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda, nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11. So this is a completely fraudulent, fear tactic, scare tactic, play to the lowest common denominator strategy by John McCain and his colleagues."

"John McCain is Washington's biggest supporter of the worst policy decision of our generation," Kerry said of McCain's support for the Iraq War. "He has failed to learn the lessons of 9/11. We are paying for that failure today. He is the candidate of the Iraq war mindset. A mindset that completely misunderstands and dangerously underestimates the threats of the 21st century, of war-fighting and terror."

Jihad Watch: McCain camp: Obama "naive"; Obama camp: McCain fearmongering

[Snowden]

And now it's time for another episode of...Samurai Obama backer and jihad sympathizer!


Al-Samurai, hastily photoshopped

Time for a new round of disavowals.

"Meet Obama's new albatross: Supporter backs Iraqi terror: Former Baghdad minister holds U.S. citizenship, boosts Dem with money, insurgency with words," from WorldNetDaily, June 16 (thanks to Doc Washburn):

WASHINGTON – An American citizen who returned to Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein to become minister of electricity has called for support of the terrorist insurgency and claims to have contributed the maximum amount under the law to the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.

Ayham al-Samurai, a Sunni Muslim and former Iraqi exile who lived in the U.S. for 20 years, held a press conference in Amman, Jordan, yesterday saying he hoped the terrorist insurgents in Iraq "would continue against occupation and avenge the Iraqi people."

The former Chicagoan added, in remarks carried by Radio Sawa, that he had contributed $2,300 to Obama's campaign.

Obama's opponent, Sen. John McCain, has been making much of the support offered the Illinois senator's campaign by Hamas's top political adviser, Ahmed Yousuf, in an exclusive interview with WND's Jerusalem bureau chief Aaron Klein. News that a fellow Chicagoan is both supporting him politically as well as the insurgency in Iraq is not expected to be welcome news in the Obama camp.

However, al-Samurai's ties to Illinois and Obama don't stop with the financial contribution.

While serving as minister of electricity, al-Samurai brokered deals with Antoin Rezko, the Syrian-American millionaire who backed Obama politically and personally. Rezko was convicted of fraud in Illinois the day Obama unofficially declared himself the winner of the Democratic nomination.

Al-Samurai was appointed minister during the term of Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. After Allawi was booted from office, al-Samurai became a mediator between insurgent groups and Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq.

He was later arrested by Iraqi police in Baghdad on corruption charges but escaped from prison with the help of U.S. private security personnel – leaving Iraq with the help of a forged Chinese passport. He later returned to Chicago where he apparently made his contribution to Obama.

Now he hopes for a return to Iraqi politics as a result of a recently passed amnesty law in the parliament.

He said in Jordan yesterday "the [insurgency] in Iraq is a legitimate resistance, and it is against occupation, and any resistance in the world against occupation is considered legitimate. I hope that [it] continues and avenges the Iraqi people, and I look forward to expanding its political agenda."...

Jihad Watch: And now it's time for another episode of...Samurai Obama backer and jihad sympathizer!

[Snowden]

"These children are being taught to hate"


More on real hate. Islamic Saudi Academy Update: "Islamic Academy Protested: Group Says School Teaches 'Hate,'" by Jerry Markon for the Washington Post, June 18 (thanks to all who sent this in):

More than a dozen people protested yesterday outside a private Islamic school in Fairfax County that critics say promotes religious intolerance and violence against people of other faiths.

The demonstration at the Islamic Saudi Academy on Route 1 was coordinated by the Traditional Values Coalition, a church lobbying group that accuses the school of using textbooks that teach children to kill. A recent study by the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom found that some of the school's textbooks say it is permissible for Muslims to kill adulterers and converts from Islam.

Everyone, of course -- everyone -- is ignoring the fact that this is all mainstream Islamic teaching.

"These children are being taught to hate," Andrea Lafferty, the coalition's executive director, said in an interview after the protest, during which demonstrators waved signs saying "Honk to Stop Islamic Terrorism" and "This Saudi School Is Anti-Semitic and Anti-Christian."

A woman who identified herself as the school's educational director but would not give her name declined to comment. Abdalla I. Al-Shabnan, the school's director general, said in an interview in January that students have never been taught to hate.

Al-Shabnan was arrested last week in an unrelated matter and charged with failing to report to authorities an allegation that a 5-year-old student had been sexually abused by a family member, Fairfax County police said yesterday. Virginia law requires that such reports be filed within 72 hours after an abuse allegation is discovered.....

Jihad Watch: "These children are being taught to hate"

[Snowden]

Spencer: Repeal Hate Speech Laws


Because jihadists -- violent and stealthy -- and their useful idiots consistently characterize speaking honestly about the jihad threat and Islamic supremacism as "hate speech." From FrontPage today:

On June 9, a 53-year-old man named Mahmoud Alkhazaleh stood in the middle of a street in Chicago, and refused to get out of the way of traffic. Soon enough a car approached, but when the driver honked at him, Alkhazaleh didn’t move. The driver tried to go around him, but at that point Alkhazaleh allegedly started to hit him and throw rocks at him. And shortly thereafter, three of Alkhazaleh’s sons ran up, started to beat the driver, spit on him, and throw rocks at him.

Alkhazaleh’s sons have been charged with felony aggravated battery. And that is all to the good. But Mahmoud Alkhazaleh himself has been charged with a “hate crime.” A “hate crime”? That charge comes because apparently Alkhazaleh called the driver who tried to get him to move out of the middle of the road a “blue-eyed devil.”

Now, I have no idea why Mahmoud Alkhazaleh wouldn’t get out of the middle of the street. Maybe it really did have to do with some deep hatred of American blue-eyed devils, but I couldn’t care less if it did. The only thing the law should really be concerned about here is that he and his sons apparently gratuitously beat up this driver. He should be prosecuted fully for that, and deported if he is not a citizen. If he called the driver a “blue-eyed devil” and the driver called him a “Pakistani [expletive],” their mothers should remind them that “sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me,” and that should be the end of that.

The hate crime charge is why this story is significant, not because Mahmoud Alkhazaleh is a Muslim. There is no indication that his odd obstinacy and subsequent belligerence have anything whatsoever to do with the global jihad. The key element of this story is the hate crime angle. If people can be prosecuted for insulting words, we are all in trouble. Soon they will begin prosecuting those who commit “Islamophobia,” as the Organization of the Islamic Conference wants Western countries so very much to do. After all, it is no accident that CAIR and co. so consistently and indefatigably label all Islamorealistic discourse as “hate speech”? They want to make it illegal for the kuffar to dare to point out that Muhammad and the Qur’an preach the subjugation of the Infidels under Sharia. Then it will be against the law to discuss the motives and goals of those who would conquer and subjugate us. And one of the last defenses against that conquest will have fallen.

And make no mistake: this is coming fast. The UN’s the United Nations Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diène is working on it, and American Muslims are helping him. Diène recently came to the United States, where he held a hearing in Miami on Islamophobia and anti-Muslim discrimination. At the hearing he met with ex-CAIR operative Ahmed Bedier, who indulged in flights of fantasy as he told Diène “how Islamophobia and anti-Muslim rhetoric by officials and pundits are contributing to hate crimes against Muslims across Florida.”

But such wild claims have a purpose. Pakistan just asked the EU to restrict freedom of expression so as to curb “offenses to Islam.” Finland just gave a blogger 2 1/2 years in prison for “insulting Islam.” Mark Steyn is on trial in Canada for essentially the same thing. Yet the worldwide assault on the freedom of speech is completely off the mainstream media radar, and even most large American blogs are consumed with the election and trivia and have paid it little notice. We could very easily fall into a situation where it becomes a prosecutable offense to discuss the war that is being waged against us the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security are only abetting this by forbidding use of the word “jihad” to describe the motives and goals of those who would destroy us. We are not to use the word, we’re told, because to do so would offend peaceful Muslims.

This is fully in accord with Mark Steyn’s precise observation that “so-called hate speech laws” are “not about facts,” but rather, “they’re about feelings.” Yet facts are really all that should concern us; the rocks Mahmoud Alkhazeh threw at the driver he confronted did not hurt more because they were accompanied by stinging words. Hate speech laws are an assault on truth telling, at precisely the moment when so few dare to tell the truth, and it is for that reason all the more urgently needed.

Prosecute Mahmoud Alkhazaleh, but drop the hate crime charges. And repeal the hate crime laws. Before it’s too late.

Jihad Watch: Spencer: Repeal Hate Speech Laws